Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

A.M. No. CA-05-18-P April 12, 2005

ZALDY NUEZ, Complainant,

vs.
ELVIRA CRUZ-APAO, respondent.

The Facts of the Case:

The complaint arose out of respondent’s solicitation of One Million Pesos

(P1,000,000.00) from Zaldy Nuez (Complainant) in exchange for a speedy and
favorable decision of the latter’s pending case in the Court of Appeals.

Complainant earlier sought the assistance of Imbestigador. The crew of the TV

program accompanied him to PAOCCF-SPG where he lodged a complaint against
respondent for extortion. Thereafter, he communicated with respondent again to
verify if the latter was still asking for the money and to set up a meeting with
her. Upon learning that respondent’s offer of a favorable decision in exchange for
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was still standing, the plan for the entrapment
operation was formulated by Imbestigador in cooperation with the PAOCC.

During the hearing of this case, respondent would like the court to believe that she
never had any intention of committing a crime, that the offer of a million pesos for a
favorable decision came from complainant and that it was complainant and the law
enforcers who instigated the whole incident.

When she was asked if she had sent the text messages contained in complainant’s
cellphone and which reflected her cellphone number, respondent admitted those that
were not incriminating but claimed she did not remember those that clearly showed
she was transacting with complainant.

Respondent thus stated that she met with complainant only to tell the latter to stop
calling and texting her, not to get the One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as pre-
arranged.

Issue:

Whether or not the text messages are admissible as evidence in court?

Held:

Yes. Complainant was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction with the text
messages from respondent duly presented before the Committee that the latter
asked for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for a favorable decision of
the former’s pending case with the CA. The text messages were properly admitted
by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the
Rules on Electronic Evidence65 which provides:

“Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text

messages . . . and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is
not recorded or retained.”

Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, “Ephemeral electronic

communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
same or who has personal knowledge thereof . . . .” In this case, complainant who
was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof
testified on their contents and import. Respondent herself admitted that the
cellphone number reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the messages
originated was hers. Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the
admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel
signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and
complainant. It is also well to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules
of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.

Complainant’s testimony as to the discussion between him and respondent on the

latter’s demand for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was corroborated by the
testimony of a disinterested witness, Siringan, the reporter of Imbestigador who was
present when the parties met in person. Siringan was privy to the parties’ actual
conversation since she accompanied complainant on both meetings held on 24 and
28 of September 2004 at Jollibee.

Respondent’s evidence was comprised by the testimony of her daughter and sister
as well as an acquaintance who merely testified on how respondent and complainant
first met. Respondent’s own testimony consisted of bare denials and self-serving
claims that she did not remember either the statements she herself made or the
contents of the messages she sent. Respondent had a very selective memory made
apparent when clarificatory questions were propounded by the Committee.

When she was asked if she had sent the text messages contained in complainant’s
cellphone and which reflected her cellphone number, respondent admitted those that
were not incriminating but claimed she did not remember those that clearly showed
she was transacting with complainant.

The Court has no doubt as to the probative value of the text messages as evidence
in determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent in this case.